2024 PLP 1529 (YLR)
KIRAMAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2024 PLP 1529 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KIRAMAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 PLP 1529 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2024 PLP 1529 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2024 PLP 1529 (YLR) (KIRAMAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zia-ur-Rahman Tajak for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 377 & 506
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act (XIII of 2010), Ss. 36, 38 & 53
Sodomy, criminal intimidation, violence against a child, harmful practices, sexual abuse
Negative medical report
Medical Report of the victim suggested that no action of sodomy had been done upon him, whereas the Forensic Science Lab Report regarding anal swab and garments of the victim was also negative with respect to human semen
No other incriminating evidence, except the solitary statement of the complainant, was available on record to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of offence
Even the complainant was not an eye-witness of the occurrence while the petitioner had not yet confessed his guilt
Thus, the case of the petitioner fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of S. 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, calling for further inquiry, and in such like cases grant of bail is to be considered as a matter of right and not as a matter of concession
So far as the applicability of Ss. 36, 38 & 53 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010 in the present case was concerned, the same would best be determined by the Trial Court after recording pro and contra evidence
Investigation of the case was complete and the petitioner was no more required by the prosecution for any purpose
Petitioner was behind bars since his arrest, therefore, his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose
Bail was allowed to the petitioner, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKOOR, J.
Having failed to get the concession of bail from the Court of learned ASJ/C.P.C./JJC, Peshawar, vide order dated 03.12.2022,, petitioner, Kiramat Khan, has moved the instant petition for the same relief in case FIR No.544 dated 02.11.2022, registered under Sections 506/377, P.P.C. read with 36, 38 and 53, C.P.A. at Police Station Regi (District Peshawar), wherein he is charged for making an attempt of sodomy on the nephew of the complainant.
2. Arguments heard and record of the cake gone through.
3. Perusal of the medical report of the victim suggests that no action of sodomy has been done upon him, whereas, the FSL report regarding anal swab and garments of the victim is also negative for human semen. Except the solitary statement of the complainant, no other incriminating evidence is available on record to prima facie connect the present accused-petitioner with the commission of offence; coupled with the fact that complainant is not the eye-witness of the occurrence. Mores, the accused has not yet confessed his guilt.
4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry in the matter; and in such like cases grant of bail is to be considered as a matter of right and not as a matter of grace or concession.
5. So far as, the applicability of rest of Sections of law is concerned, the same would best be determined by the learned trial Court, after recording pro and contra evidence. Besides, investigation in the case is complete and accused-petitioner is no more required to the prosecution for any purpose. He is behind the bars since his arrest; therefore, his further incarceration in jail will serve no useful purpose.
6. Before parting with this order, this Court finds it necessary to mention that all the observations recorded above are tentative assessment just for the disposal of bail petition and not to influence the mind of trial Court, which is free to appraise the evidence strictly in accordance with law and merits of the case.
7. For what has been discussed above and on tentative assessment of material available on record, an arguable case for the grant of bail is made out, consequently, this bail petition is allowed and accused-petitioner, named above, is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The sureties must be local, reliable and men of means. MQ/79/P Bail granted.